Jennifer Francis v. City of Los Angeles (LAPD) Verdict

Stanley Mosk Courthouse, downtown Los Angeles

April 5, 2019
I arrived on the 5th floor of the Stanley Mosk Courthouse a little before 10am. I was late to court. I had gotten all the way to the bus station when I realized I didn't have my Metro tap card or credit card. I had left them in the pocket of the jacket I had worn yesterday.

Jennifer Francis's counsel were in the hallway as well as two of the alternate jurors. A little farther away down the hall were a group of attorneys from the LAPD's Legal Affairs Office. They had been in the courtroom for the past week.  Defense counsel Reginald Roberts, along with Deputy City Attorney Karen Park, have stayed inside the courtroom waiting on deliberations.

I started reading the web and got lost for a bit. The next time I looked up, there were several jurors in the hallway and John Taylor was headed into the courtroom. Not long after, a new courtroom assistant was hanging a sign on the outside of Dept 56 that said, "Jurors wait in the hallway until called." I was guessing that the jurors were either on a break or they had a question.

The verdict form has eight questions the jurors, depending on their answers along the way will answer. Here is verdict form question number 1:

My friend Matthew McGough arrives and we find out that the jury had a question that was answered. Here is the first  question from the jurors.

The answer that was sent back to the jurors is "No."

Everyone's now back inside the courtroom. The courtroom assistant, a man I've never seen before, is telling the clerk at the desk that the jurors need five sheets of paper. They have five questions.

11:07AM
Another buzz from the jury. The courtroom attendant enters the jury room. A file folder is brought out. The attendant makes copies and walks the papers into Judge Fujie's chambers. They have their second question.

Mr. Roberts states, "I thought there were five questions. The attendant replies, "maybe expect four more buzzes. Ms. Park shows me the jurors question on her phone. I don't write it all down quickly enough.

11:12AM
Judge Fjuie comes out from her chambers for a moment. Plaintiff's counsel John Taylor and Matthew McNicholas leave, then come back.

11:15AM
Judge Fujie is on the bench. She reads out loud for the record the second question from the jury.

The jurors continue deliberating while counsel argue to the court what the answer should be.

I have in my notes this comment, but I'm not certain if it's the court, the Defense or Plaintiff's counsel who said it. It is not what is in her mind ... It is up to the jury to determine if the content of the disclosure is a violation of state or federal law. It's possible this is what the court said.

Counsel for the Defendant, the City of LA, argue the answer should be "Yes." Counsel for the Plaintiff, Jennifer, argue the answer should be "No."

And back and forth it goes. Like I've seen many times during this trial, the court is indecisive and waffles back and forth on the record. At first, Judge Fujie appears to side with the Plaintiff. The court and Defense argue back and forth about what the prior case law has interpreted this issue.

I believe it's defense counsel who states, something to the effect of ... [it's the] Plaintiff's burden to establish ... accessory to murder. In the discussion, It appears to me the court cannot decide on how to answer the question. Judge Fujie states, in reference to question #1, "It's confusing."

Ms. Park and Mr. Roberts discuss the issue between themselves.

Judge Fujie muses, "I'm looking at .. is whether if what Ms. Francis disclosed ... if they ... true or if ... would have been [against?] a state or federal law."

Both sides of the aisle just want either a yes or no answer to the jury. Judge Fujie decides to draft her own answer for the jury.  The court tries to craft something out loud. "Is it up to the jury to decide ... if what the plaintiff disclosed ... potentially is a [violation] of State or Federal law?"

I believe it's the Defense who states, "The instruction does not say potential." Mr. Roberts has serious objections to the instruction. John Taylor speaks, and it appears everyone is talking at once. Judge Fujie, appearing exasperated addresses counsel, "Please stop talking."

Judge Fujie goes back into chambers and drafts her own answer to the jury and comes back out with it. Defense counsel agree with the instruction. Plaintiff's counsel is still considering it at the start of the lunch hour.

The lunch hour is called and I have to leave for a special dental appointment I've been waiting months to get. I could not have rescheduled it. It was set months ago. I cannot stay to see if the Plaintiff's counsel agrees with the court's language in the answer to the jurors' question #2. I tell Matthew he's on his own if a verdict comes in while I'm gone.

I take the Expo Line train down to the Herman Ostrow School of Dentistry at USC.

I'm sitting in the dental chair, waiting for the professor to stop by when I get this text from Matthew around 2:08 pm: "Jen lost - 12-0 on question #1." Matthew tells me that Jennifer left the courtroom before the jury was polled.

My heart sinks for Jennifer.

This is the answer the court crafted for the jurors to their second question.

It is up to the jury to determine if the contents of the disclosure, if true, violated state or federal law.

MyNewsLA.com - Jury Rejects LAPD Criminalist's Whistleblower Case
LA Times - Jury Sides With City in Retaliation Lawsuit

Jennifer Francis v. City of Los Angeles (LAPD) Verdict Watch, Day 1

 Stanley Mosk Courthouse, downtown Los Angeles

UPDATE 4/16: Corrected the spelling of Detective Shepard's last name. Sprocket
CORRECTION 4/15: I've made a correction to the section on defense counsel's closing statement, regarding what John Ruetten told detectives in 1986. In my original post, I did not say or intend to say that defense counsel Reginald Roberts intentionally misled the jury, only that he had misstated what John Ruetten told detectives in 1986. The corrected text below is based on actual transcripts and official records, some of them dating back to 1986. Sprocket
UPDATED 4/5: Adding Jeff Thompson's title, Asst. Lab Director. Sprocket
 
April 4, 2019
Closing arguments were presented to the jury today.

[Note: What follows is a very short summary of closing arguments. I will have a more comprehensive report when I publish my daily notes. Sprocket.]

9:40AM
In the morning session, the jurors heard closing arguments from both parties. The plaintiff's attorney John Taylor went first. Much of Taylor's closing argument was reviewing with the jury defense counsel Reginald Roberts opening statements and characterizing many of the statements as misleading or outright wrong.There are quite a few statements that Taylor goes over with the jury.

John Taylor told the jury of the many people that Francis told about what Cold Case Detective Cliff Shepard said to her in 2005, that John Ruetten's ex-girlfriend, a detective, didn't murder Sherri Rasmussen. She was cleared. Those people included, in order of who she went to, [then] DDA Shelly Torrealba, Detective Greg Stearns, Harry Klann, Jeff Thompson (Assistant Lab Director), Detective Dan Jaramillo, Detective Debra Winter and finally the Office of the Inspector General.

[Note: When Francis went to the Inspector General, that notification finally triggered an Internal Affairs investigation. Sprocket]

John Taylor told the jury that Jeffrey Thompson, a supervisor in SID (Science Investigation Division) admitted on the stand he ordered Jennifer Francis to Behavioral Sciences Section (BSS) for psychological counseling without the approval or review by the commander of SID.

Taylor reminded the jurors of DDA Beth Silverman's testimony where she indicated she had heard from other Deputy DA's in her office, negative comments about Jennifer's ability to be a team player and that she wanted to lead investigations. Taylor told the jury about DDA Silverman's testimony regarding the DA's office "Brady" database, where, any accusation or complaint about police officers is kept and could potentially be turned over to the defense as part of discovery in a criminal case.

In his closing, Taylor told the jurors that the LAPD's decision to send Jennifer to BSS was retaliation and caused her emotional pain and suffering. Taylor pointed out that Jennifer's reputation suffered with the DA's office.

[Note: Jeff Thompson in his deposition, stated that DDA Beth Silverman told him she did not want Jennifer Francis doing any DNA analysis on the Grim Sleeper serial killer case she was prosecuting. That DDA Silverman told him that Francis would be defense witness number one. Sprocket]

Based on Jennifer's estimated lifespan of 83 years, Taylor recommended the following compensation for Francis. For the age period of age 50 to 60 years, she should be compensated somewhere between $875,000 to $1.2 million, per year.  Taylor then recommended another amount, over $500,000 per year for the age years from 60 to 83.

Taylor spoke for approximately an hour. The jurors were given a break and then defense attorney Reginald Roberts started his closing argument right before 11am.

Roberts started off by talking about his biggest fear as a lawyer was getting some fact wrong for his client. He then directs the jurors to focus in on one of the instructions the jurors were given, the Casey instruction 0329.

[Note: I believe I have that correct in my notes. Sprocket]

Roberts then went through several sections of Detective James Nuttall's testimony and interpreting it for the jury.

Roberts stated that all the evidence the Plaintiff told them referencing the murder of Sherri Rasmussen, going back 33 years, "... that's a distraction. ... This case is about 2004 to now."  Roberts told the jurors that Francis was one of several criminalists who worked on the case, she wasn't the only one. He stated that the LAPD Detectives "stuck with the case over time ... [and] got the right person [Lazarus]."

Roberts mentions the commemorative award Francis received for her work on the case. "You don't retaliate by giving [the] highest award. This was a public honor for a team [effort]."

Roberts tells the jury a "... homicide team ...  worked to put Lazarus in prison." Roberts lists on the screen the many names of detectives, Deputy District Attorneys and criminalists who worked on the Lazarus case. "Jennifer is the only one who claims retaliation."

As Roberts speaks to the jury, he paces a bit and waves his arms around a lot. He tells the story of watching [I believe] a golf tournament or golfer on TV with his young 4 year old son, and that his son when asked the golfer's name, said Lion instead of Tiger [Woods].

Roberts stated "... Plaintiff never disclosed a crime ... [plaintiff] complained about the way Detective Shepard conducted the investigation not that [misconduct?] was done."

PREVIOUS TEXT DELETED

CORRECTED TEXT
Roberts tells the jury, "John Ruetten was interviewed. And he was crying when he was telling the detective, Detective Mayer way back when, 'I don't have any problems with an ex-police officer girlfriend.' He told the detetives back in '86, 'I don't have a problem with anyone else.'"

[Note: During Roberts examination of Detective James Nuttall on 3/18/19, Roberts asked the following question:

Roberts: So was it your understanding that he was crying when he was telling the detective, no, I don't have any problems with an ex police-officer girlfriend?
Nuttall: That's correct, sir.

Here is what John Ruetten told Detective Lyle Mayer in their interview on 2/24/86, the night of the murder:

Mayer: You were not having any family problems, or marital problems, or anything?
Ruetten: We were having the best time. We just got married.
Mayer: No financial problems? She's not having any problems with an  ex-boyfriend? Or you with an ex-girlfriend?
Ruetten: No.

During the crime scene walkthrough the following morning, 2/25/86, John Ruetten gave Detective Mayer Stephanie Lazarus's name and informed him that she was a police officer. There's no evidence that John in 1986 ever described Stephanie Lazarus to Mayer as a girlfriend or ex-girlfriend.

EDITOR'S NOTE: T&T is always happy to make a correction, if warranted, upon request. Sprocket]

Roberts tells the jury that after Francis developed the female profile, the Rasmussen murder fell into the lowest classification tier [#4] of cases to work within the Cold Case Unit and that Detective Shepard was "very busy."

Cold Case Unit Classification Level [Highest to lowest priority]
1. DNA hit [connected] to an specific person who is free [not in custody].
2. DNA hit to a specific person who is in custody.
3. DNA hit case to case but no specific person known.
4. No DNA hit to a known suspect.

Roberts tells the jurors that Jeff Thompson in his testimony said Francis "... didn't have a single bit of evidence Cliff Shepard [had] committed a crime."

Roberts tells the jurors that the Cold Case Unit's working conditions were so cramped that when Detective Shepard worked on a case, he had to run over to a storage unit to get a file and run back. Detective Shepard had over 100 cases on his plate, including serial killers.

[Note: It is my memory that I heard Detective Shepard testify earlier in this trial that when he was moved to the Grim Sleeper Task Force, the Rasmussen murder book was locked in a file cabinet behind his desk. Sprocket]

Roberts mentions again that Detective Nuttall never picked up the phone to call Detective Shepard.

Roberts tells the jury that when Detective Nuttall started looking into one of their own for the murder of Sherri Rasmussen, "... he didn't get any push back..." [from his superiors]. Roberts states that the Van Nuys unit kept the investigation under wraps because they knew Stephanie's husband also worked in the same building as them.

Roberts arms are flailing around as he talks to the jury. Roberts then talks about the Lazarus arrest.

Roberts tells the jury that the Plaintiff never told anyone or used the words "cover up" that it was her own counsel, a different counsel than the firm representing her now, who was with her during her interview by the Internal Affairs investigator who used that term. Roberts goes over the various people Francis told about Detective Shepard's statements and that every time she was asked if she was reporting misconduct by Shepard and Francis said no, that she was not making an accusation of misconduct. Like he did in his opening statement, Roberts plays portions of Jennifer's taped deposition for the jury answering these questions.

Roberts claims that the LAPD did not retaliate against Francis. She was not demoted and she did not lose any pay, so there was no retaliation. After the Lazarus trial Jennifer's supervisors gave her higher performance evaluations and she received a commendation. Roberts claims that Francis continued to testify in court on DUI toxicology cases.

Roberts tells the jury that after the Internal Affairs investigation, "... Plaintiff didn't like the outcome ... so we're here." Roberts tells the jury, Francis was "... sent to BSS although she was also under her own therapy at the same time."

[Note: This is not an accurate statement. Francis did not seek her own psychological counseling until after she was ordered to BSS. Sprocket]

Roberts then brings up things in Francis's personal life that she talked about with her own therapist. These are the same things Roberts mentioned in his opening statement, such as her father was dying of cancer during the same time frame. Roberts tells the jury her therapist testified "... she had a lot of problems going on ... these can be an extreme emotional mental burden ..."

[Note: Some of the things that Roberts tells the jury that Jennifer spoke in confidence to her therapist about I will not repeat here. It is my own personal opinion this information is private and would re-victimize Jennifer. Sprocket.]

Roberts tells the jury "... she was dealing with all [this] family stuff [during] the same time frame ... we [LAPD] didn't cause any of those personal things ..."

In closing, Roberts goes over the eight questions on the verdict form that the jurors need to fill out and how he feels they should answer each question.

Roberts finishes his closing about six minutes into the lunch hour. He apologizes to the jurors for taking up some of their lunch time.

Judge Fujie then asks the jurors if they would like to go to lunch now or listen to the Plaintiff's rebuttal arguments before they go to lunch. The jurors say they would like to listen to the rebuttal arguments before they go to lunch.

John Taylor presents his rebuttal arguments. Taylor tells the jury again that defense counsel misled them and cherry picked out information. He talks about psychosomatic symptoms and that they are not all in Jennifer's head.

Taylor brings up Harry Klann's deposition [Jennifer's immediate supervisor at the time] where he adamantly states he did not believe what Jennifer told him about Detective Shepard, a homicide detective, possibly covering up a murder. 

Taylor tells the jury, "Not one LAPD person, ... did you see one [person] who cared about Jennifer Francis."

Taylor talks about the LAPD being incapable of policing themselves. They [LAPD] want to know if they got away with it again. Taylor says, "You get to see how the LAPD treats one of their own ..."

Taylor tells the jury that the damages numbers he recommended to them "... those [numbers] are low. ... They know it. ... If [you come back with a number any lower] ... they [LAPD] will be clinking champagne glasses ..."

Taylor concludes his rebuttal argument around 12:20pm Juge Fujie then tells the jurors to return to the courtroom at 2pm. She tells them, "I bought you snacks [that are] in the jury room. No court funds were used." She says this is her gift to them.

3:39 PM
Some jurors exit the courtroom for a break.

3:49 PM
Jurors start to file back into the courtroom.

4:31 PM
No verdict today. Deliberations continue tomorrow at 9:30am.

Explosive Accusation by DDA Beth Silverman, Moments After Testifying in Francis v. City of LA (LAPD)

Stanley Mosk Courthouse

March 29, 2019
Today’s most dramatic moment came in the afternoon session. This morning, if someone had told me that this event happened without witnessing it myself, I never would have believed them.

DDA Beth Silverman was called to the stand by the defense to testify why she did not want Criminalist Jennifer Francis assigned to the Grim Sleeper case in 2010, after Lonnie Franklin was arrested. Francis had performed some DNA analysis on that case.

Moments after stepping down from the witness stand, DDA Silverman went out into the hallway, then came back inside and announced loudly to everyone in the court room, in front of the jury, “I am being attacked by co-counsel in the hallway.” DDA Silverman asked for an escort to the escalators to get out of the building.



The disruption threw the courtroom into a tizzy. Defense counsel Reginald Roberts exited the courtroom, came right back, and complained aloud, “Courtney McNicholas.” All three defense attorneys condemned McNicholas’s conduct, based solely on DDA Silverman’s outburst.

 Although no one in the courtroom witnessed the incident, Judge Fujie also immediately condemned McNicholas and called her behavior in the hallway “appalling.” Judge Fujie did not question any witnesses about what had happened outside the courtroom. Defense counsel then demanded that McNicholas be barred from the courtroom for the duration of the trial. Judge Fujie promptly agreed.

All of this played out in front of the jury.

Eyewitnesses interviewed by T&T reported that there was no physical altercation between McNicholas and DDA Silverman. All the eyewitnesses reported that McNicholas and DDA Silverman were angry and exchanged words, after which McNicholas walked away and sat on a bench.

T&T has reached out to both parties for comment.

In other Francis trial news, LA Times reporter Alene Tchekmedyian, who has dropped in occasionally on the trial, has a story about Dorothy Tucker, the LAPD BSS psychologist who Francis was ordered to see. 


I’ve been attending most of the trial and hope to catch up on my daily recaps soon.

Additional reporting by Matthew McGough.

Jennifer Francis v The City of Los Angeles (LAPD) Day 2

Jennifer Francis testifying at Lazarus' trial, Feb. 2012;

Nels & Loretta Rasmussen in the gallery.

© 2012 by Thomas Broersma (thomasbroersma@yahoo.com). 

All rights reserved by the artist.

UPDATE 3/28 10:00pm: Short update to voir dire on this date, see below. Sprocket
UPDATE 3/28: I forgot to mention that my trial friend Matthew McGough has been attending every day of the trial and many of the pretrial hearings. Sprocket.
March 12, 2019 Note: Jury selection did not start in this case until March 12. The parties dealt with pretrial issues and some jury instructions on March 11. Sprocket

Background
Jennifer Francis is a DNA analyst currently employed with the LAPD's Forensic Science
Division (previously called Science Investigation Division or, SID). She is a civilian employee and not a sworn officer.

Sometime before 2004, LAPD Cold Case Detective Cliff Shepard submitted the February 1986 murder of Sherri Rasmussen to SID for DNA analysis in the hopes that a DNA profile of a suspect could be developed.

In late 2004, Francis was assigned with developing a DNA profile from evidence collected in the Rasmussen murder. During that time, Shepard and Francis communicated about the case. Francis was instrumental in spurring staff at the LA County Coroner's Office to search their Evidence Control Section freezers for a piece of evidence listed in the case file but was not in LAPD custody. That evidence was a bite mark swab collected from the victim's body by LA County Criminalist Lloyd Mahaney. 

In 2005, the DNA profile that Francis developed from that swab indicated Sherri's murderer was a woman. That DNA profile eventually led to the June 2009 arrest of LAPD Detective Stephanie Lazarus for the murder of Sherri Rasmussen. Lazarus was convicted of first degree murder in 2012, a trial I covered from gavel to gavel.

The Civil Case
On October 30, 2013 Jennifer Francis (plaintiff) sued her employer, the City of Los Angeles, LAPD (defendant).

Francis's lawsuit alleges retaliation by the City for having alerted LAPD management that detective(s) may have known about Lazarus in 2005, but failed to act on that information. Francis alleges that she was labeled as unstable and ordered to undergo psychological counseling after she alerted several superiors within the LAPD. You can read the full complaint HERE.

This case was assigned to Dept 56 at the Stanley Mosk Courthouse. Francis's lawsuit has been languishing in the LA County Superior Court system for over five years before coming to trial. In the five plus years the Francis case has been in Dept. 56, three different judges have presided over the department. The current judge is the Honorable Judge Holly Fujie.

Francis's counsel of record is the law firm of Taylor Ring. John Taylor is jointly assisted by the law firm of McNicholas & McNicholas. Matthew McNicholas is in court and occasionally his associate Douglas Winter. However, it was Courtney McNicholas who I saw at all the pretrial hearings I've attended over the years.

Over the past five years the City of Los Angeles has had several different Deputy City Attorney's assigned to the case. The case was eventually farmed out to an independent law firm, Sanders Roberts in 2018 to defend. Reginald Roberts, Shawn Thomas and Melvin Felton are all seated at the defense table.

Jennifer Francis has been sitting in the gallery for most of the trial, since there is no room for her at the plaintiff's table. Also in the gallery are Tim Lai, from LAPD Legal Affairs and Karen Park, a supervisor in the City Attorney's office. Ms. Park is always sharply dressed and I've been envious of the beautiful scarves she wears to adorn her ensemble. On a few occasions, counsel and gentlemen in the gallery have discussed the potential meaning of the color of their ties, and if the tie color signals an allegiance to a specific sports team.

The Stanley Mosk Courthouse
The Stanley Mosk Courthouse is a civil courthouse located in downtown Los Angeles. It is the largest courthouse in the nation. It is a sprawling building that takes up almost an entire city block. There is an entry to the building on Hill Street, on First Street and one on Grand Street. There are close to 100 courtrooms in this building, each one with a busy, over-burdened schedule. My recent divorce was granted in this courthouse.

The first thing you notice when you walk into one of these courtrooms is how absolutely tiny the majority of them are. You could almost fit two of these courtrooms into one of the 9th floor courtrooms of the Clara Shortridge-Foltz Criminal Justice Center. The well of the court area is very tiny. There are approximately 50 stadium type, fold down and nicely padded seats in the gallery. Since I've recently lost a noticeable amount of weight, these seats are finally comfortable for me. However, if you have a little bit extra on your hips, these seats might not feel so nice. (For those of you interested on how I've lost about 55 pounds in the last year, please feel free to email me. Sprocket)

Like the courtrooms in the criminal court building, there are no separate tables for the defense and plaintiff like what is depicted in many TV shows. It is one long table where the plaintiff's counsel sits closest to the jury box, and the defense on the other side. There is barely enough room for the five counsel at this table. The gentleman who is handling the presentation of all the exhibits put up on the big computer screen for the jury is sitting in the gallery in the first bench row and a small folding table is crammed partially in the aisle for his laptop.

Criminal vs. Civil Cases
I've covered criminal trials, mostly murder cases for about 12 years now. This is a civil case and the rules covering them are quite different than a criminal matter. I'm literally a fish out of water.

One of the first differences to note is, in State court, a civil case that is not adjudicated or brought to trial within five years can be dismissed. Evidence that is going to be presented at trial must be disclosed to the other party at least 30 days before trial. You cannot spring a surprise witness or evidence on the opposing party just days before the start of a trial, like the defense did in the Kelly Soo Park murder case. The judge would not allow it.

Jury instructions are different too. I'm familiar with California's CALJIC and CALCRIM, standard instructions in criminal cases. However, I am totally lost in the sea of jury instructions outlined for civil litigation. Jury instructions will be a noteworthy issue in this case. The trial has started and several jury instructions are still being negotiated. This means I don't know at this date what specific issues in the original complaint will be decided by the jury.

The judge in a civil case can also limit counsel to the number of hours each side has to present their case. Judge Holly Fujie has limited each side to just 30 hours of court time to present opening arguments, their case, cross examination and closing arguments. Judge Fujie is keeping a running tab on how many hours each side uses in voir dire, opening statements and examining witnesses. The courts total of the hours spent so far is usually asked for by the parties at the end of the day. It remains to be seen if Judge Fujie will keep the parties to these limits. (Note: As of the close of court on March 27, the plaintiff disagreed with the court's tabulation of their hours spent. Sprocket)

Tuesday, Pre-trial Witness: Dr. Annette Rittmann
Last Friday and Monday, Dr. Rittmann was order by the court to appear in Dept. 56. She gave testimony not related to the trial itself that the jury would hear, but related to motions filed by the plaintiff and the defense. Dr. Rittmann was the personal physician of Dorothy Tucker, Ph.D., (deceased). Dr. Tucker was a psychologist that the plaintiff, Jennifer Francis saw, when she was ordered by a superior into counseling with the LAPD's Behavioral Sciences Services Division (BSS). Once I obtain documents, I will have more on why Dr. Rittmann's testimony was a positive outcome for the defense.

Voir Dire
Right after Dr. Rittmann was released from the stand a group of jurors were called to Dept. 56. Jury selection continued on March 13, 14 and 15. In the afternoon of March 15, opening statements were presented by both parties. I was unable to attend opening statements but I hope to obtain a copy of the court reporter's transcript.

UPDATE: Voir Dire - Continued
When the jurors were brought in, Judge Fujie talked to the jurors about her own grandparents who came to this country and were not allowed to vote or participate in the legal process. Judge Fujie said she thinks of her grandparents every time she has a trial. With a smile on her face, Judge Fujie also told the jurors, "I give snacks." She told the jurors that it would take 9 of 12 jurors to reach a verdict. She then gave the jurors the standard pretrial instruction.

Each side gave a short statement explaining to the jurors what the case was about from their perspective.

Mr. Roberts cuts a nice figure in his tailored suits. When it was his turn to address the jury, he told the jurors to imagine themselves as a pilot on a plane.

I took very few notes during voir dire on this day.

The next post on the case can be found HERE.

Jennifer Francis v. City of Los Angeles (LAPD), Trial Day One

Stanley Mosk Courthouse, Downtown Los Angeles

March 11, 2019
Jury selection begins in the civil case of Jennifer Francis v. City of Los Angeles (LAPD). This case is related to the Stephanie Lazarus murder trial. In 2012, Lazarus was convicted of first degree murder in the 1986 death of Sherri Rae Rasmussen.

Francis is the LAPD DNA analyst who in 2005, developed the DNA profile that pointed to a female suspect having murdered Sherri.

Francis is alleging retaliation by the City for having alerted LAPD management that investigators may have known about Lazarus in 2005, but failed to act on that information. Francis alleges that she was labeled as unstable and ordered to undergo counseling after she alerted her superiors.

The questions in this case that relate to the Lazarus case are, what did the LAPD know about Lazarus, and when did they know it? Did LAPD detectives look the other way once DNA showed that Sherri’s killer was a woman, and possibly a fellow officer?



This trial is expected to last two weeks or more. I hope to cover the entire trial. If I cannot attend, I will be getting updates from fellow journalists.

Jennifer Francis v. LAPD Civil Case

Stanley Mosk Courthouse, downtown Los Angeles.

Source: www.lacourt.org

UPDATE 12:30 pm correction in speaker's name from Taylor to McNicholas
UPDATE 9:25 am minor spelling errors corrected. Sprocket
April 26, 2018
On Thursday, April 26, after the Gargiulo hearing in the morning, I stayed for lunch so I could drop in on an afternoon hearing in a civil case that my friend Matthew McGough has been following. For those of you who don't know, McGough is writing a book on the Stephanie Lazarus case.

This case is in Department 56 at the Stanley Mosk Courthouse and relates to the Lazarus case. And let me tell you, from my perspective, it was a bizarro day for an afternoon court session. I've attended a few of the hearings in this case over the past few years but this is the first time I'm writing up my notes in detail. Civil cases can be just as complicated as a long cause criminal trial and I had a great deal of difficulty following what was going on.



For those of you who followed the Stephanie Lazarus murder trial, Jennifer Francis is the LAPD criminalist who developed the female DNA profile back in February 2005.

On October 30, 2013, Francis sued the LAPD alleging harassment and retaliation for alerting her superiors to a possible cover-up in the Stephanie Lazarus case. I highly recommend reading the complaint to get an understanding of what this case is about. 
The LA Times published a article when the lawsuit was filed and there was a write up by City News Service in My News LA.

Francis is represented by Courtney McNicholas and John Taylor of Taylor Ring. I first met John Taylor at the Phil Spector trial, when he represented the family of Lana Clarkson in their wrongful death suit against the music mogul. Taylor also represented the parents of murder victim Sherri Rae Rasmussen, Nels and Loretta Rasmussen in their lawsuit against the City alleging an LAPD coverup. That case was dismissed.

The Francis case is slated to go to trial October 1, 2018. Civil cases filed in California must be brought to trial in five years or the case is dismissed without prejudice. Section 583.310 California Code of Civil Procedure. 



The Stanley Mosk Courthouse was renamed in 2002 after Justice Stanley Mosk. The courtrooms in this 1950's building are truly tiny, little square boxes. There are only 13 seats in the jury box and just a few dozen in the gallery.  And trust me, the old flip down style seats are not that comfortable if you have extra padding on your hips.



Inside Dept. 56, 1:30 pm
John Anthony is the attorney for the City (LAPD). McNicholas & Taylor work at setting up their files. McNicholas is wearing a nice black suit and Taylor, wearing a light gray suit looks like he just walked out of a Brooks Brothers ad. Matthew McGough is here. 

 It’s been about three weeks since I last saw Matthew at his 10th annual “Baseball Hot Stove Dinner,” and I almost didn’t recognize him in his white shirt, dark jacket and Dodger blue tie. I'm comforted that, despite wearing a jacket and tie, he is wearing jeans like I always do. I notice for the first time that Matthew is sporting some gray hair. Matthew has been keeping tabs on all things related to Lazarus since June 2009.


Before the hearing starts, Francis comes over to us and mentions something about the Golden State Killer. The news broke of an arrest in that 40 year cold case a day or two earlier. Joseph DeAngelo was a former cop who was fired for shoplifting in 1979. His DNA was never entered into CODIS.   Jennifer speculated if the arrest didn’t come through CODIS, did the investigators utilize a public DNA data base to nab their killer. Later that day, news broke that Jennifer’s theory was correct.


Judge Holly Fujie takes the bench.

Judge Fujie issued a tentative order denying plaintiff’s motion for sanctions on the City for not complying with discovery demands, deposition subpoenas, and producing witnesses for depositions. Judge Fujie says she assumes the plaintiffs would like to argue the tentative order.

Taylor tells the court it’s not the sanctions they wish to argue it’s the outstanding issues with discovery and depositions. Taylor tells the court the City has not produced all the documents the plaintiff is entitled to.



Judge Fujie tells the parties, “I will go back and take a look at this. This case is...” 



McNicholas offers the description, “Unwieldy.”



Judge Fujie replies, “Yes.”



A bit of background on Department 56. Judge Fujie was only recently assigned to Dept. 56, within the last few months. The previous judge in Dept. 56 was Judge Michael Johnson. Incidentally, back in 2010, Judge Johnson was once assigned to the downtown criminal court, Dept. 108, where he presided over the Michael Gargiulo preliminary hearing. 



In the Francis case, because of prior discovery disputes, the parties agreed to split the cost of a discovery referee, a retired judge, Judge Cooper. McNicholas tells the court they’ve paid $60,000 to the referee in just three months (October, November and December 2017). That means the City has paid the same amount, in taxpayer money.



According to McNicholas, the discovery referee ordered the City to produce documents regarding Detective Cliff Shepard. 

Judge Fujie replies, “I came in at the end of the case.”


I’m amazed the court implied on the record that the court is not familiar with what’s been going on with this case. As a court watcher, I understand that our courts are overburdened. LA County has the largest court system in the US. However, it’s the court’s responsibility when they come in on a case, to get up to speed. Judge Fujie says she wants to see the transcripts of what the discovery referee said.



The upcoming schedule is discussed.


Judge Fujie tells the parties, “I’m going to go back and take a look at the documents with the issues the plaintiff has with discovery.” The court leaves the bench to look over the case file. 

When Judge Fujie returns, she tells the parties, “I’ve gone through everything in our files. I’m going to ask a few questions and I want short answers.” The court says, “The motion for sanctions ... the issues with that motion, two feet tall, still remain.”



Apparently, McNicholas filed a monster brief of all the problems they’ve had with the City not turning over documents or not providing witnesses for depositions.


To me, it seems Judge Fujie is frustrated with McNicholas. McNicholas explains they are still waiting for the City to produce several records including emails from an Internal Affairs Sargent who investigated the Rasmussen family allegation of a coverup.



Judge Fujie asks to see transcripts of what exactly the discovery referee said. The court then tells the parties, “I want to get this case to trial ... I want a minimum of drama.”



Anthony, the City attorney responds, “I don’t have a problem producing emails. ... I just need to see if we have them and if they’re privileged.”



Judge Fujie orders the plaintiff to produce a “very specific” chart of all items the plaintiff wants the City to turn over. Judge Fujie wants the parties to get the discovery done, so the case can go to trial.  



McNicholas tells the court she thinks it’s a two to three week trial from opening to closing. The court firmly tells the parties, “This case will go forward.”



McNicholas asks the court to order the City to provide a date for the deposition for Commander Rick Webb, the former commanding officer of Internal Affairs.

Judge Fujie informs Anthony the City must give a date for Webb’s deposition by May 3. Anthony hemmed and haws, saying Webb might be out of town or on vacation. McNicholas states she can provide Webb’s phone and home address if Anthony can’t get it. 



Judge Fujie further clarifies what she wants on the chart of the outstanding discovery request. The court schedules the deadlines for the plaintiff to produce the chart and the City’s response. 



McNicholas brings up the issue of Dorothy Tucker. Dorthy Tucker was the LAPD’s Behavioral Science Services psychologist that Francis was ordered to see by her superiors.

Tucker died in December 2017, before she could be deposed. McNicholas tells the court she knows of witnesses who were ordered not to appear at scheduled depositions, inferring this is what happened with Tucker. It’s my understanding the City notified Francis’s attorneys in 2015 that Tucker was deceased. After that notification, McNicholas discovered Tucker was still alive. Then Tucker actually did die before her deposition could be taken.

The City tells the court Tucker may have been too sick to sit for a deposition. Judge Fujie tells the City to produce documentation from Tucker’s doctor that she was too sick to sit for a deposition before she died.


My eyes had already started to glaze over about 45 minutes into this hearing. I don’t know how Matthew keeps any of this information straight. 



The court and counsel set up a schedule for briefs; they will discuss Tucker and other issues on June 29.  Judge Fujie says that her priority is that the parties are prepared for an “efficient trial.”



At the end of the hearing, the trial date is moved to October 1, 2018 at 9:30 am.  Final status conference will be September 15, 2018 at 8:30 am. And that’s it for this hearing. We slowly file out of the courtroom about 3:30 pm.



I’m wondering what will happen to this case if it doesn’t go to trial by October 30.


Complaint
LA Times article
My News LA Calif.
Code of Civil Procedure 583.310